Nov 05, 2007
The first two decisions by the Competition Commission of Singapore, issued in the first quarter of 2007, represent important milestones in the implementation of competition law in Singapore since the enactment of the Competition Act 2004. Both cases involved cooperation agreements between airline operators who had sought negative clearance through the Commission´s notification process. This article provides an overview of the legal and policy background behind the new competition regime and, in particular, explains how the new statutory provisions concerned with anticompetitive agreements were applied to the two notified agreements described above. An analysis of these two cases is also conducted to illustrate how the competition regulator has interpreted the relevant competition law principles in the course of its decision-making process.
Featured News
EU Set to Review Rival Netflix and Paramount Skydance Bids for Warner Bros. Discovery
Jan 21, 2026 by
CPI
Judge Tosses Drug Pricing Conspiracy Case Against CVS, UnitedHealth, Evernorth
Jan 21, 2026 by
CPI
House Panel Alleges CVS Used Contracts to Suppress Pharmacy Competition
Jan 21, 2026 by
CPI
AI Is Changing M&A as Regulators Target ‘Killer Acquisitions’ and Data Control
Jan 21, 2026 by
CPI
Epic Games Brings in Veteran Tech Lawyer as Legal Chief
Jan 21, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Recidivism
Jan 21, 2026 by
CPI
Recidivism, Multiple Offending, and Serial Offending in Antitrust
Jan 21, 2026 by
Gregory Werden
Antitrust Recidivism: Why Repeat Cases Appear, and Why True Reoffending Is Rare in the United States
Jan 21, 2026 by
Lisa M. Phelan, Megan S. Golden, Adrienne Irmer & Nina Worth
99 Antitrust Problems – Is Recidivism One?
Jan 21, 2026 by
Brian A. Ratner & Kartik S. Madiraju
Holding A Cat by the Tail: A View of Cartel Recidivism in U.S. Antitrust Enforcement
Jan 21, 2026 by
Mark & KaDee L. Ru